New approaches in Eurocode 3 efficient global structural design

Part 0: An explanatory introduction

Dr. Ferenc Papp* and Dr. Jzsef Szalai **
* Associate Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, BUTE, Hungary, e-mail:fpapp@epito.bme.hu
** Chief Researcher, ConSteel Solutions Ltd, Hungary, e-mail:szalaija@kesz.hu

Abstract

The new versions of the EN 1993-1-1 (EC3-1-1) and the EN 1993-1-5 (EC3-1-5) standards
have introduced the general method to design beam-column structures. This design method
uses 3D geometric model and general finite element method. In a series of papers we present
this general design approach. The parts of the series are the following:

Part 0:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:

An explanatory introduction
3D model based analysis using general beam-column FEM
Resistances of cross-sections using generalized cross-sectional models
Resistances of structural members using the general method
Special issues of the 3D model based design method

In this paper the topic is reviewed briefly and placed into the field of interest of practicing
engineers struggling for understanding the advantages of using the Structural Eurocodes.

1. Evolution of standardized structural design

The demand for uniform rules which are obligatory for all providers in the construction field
arose in the early decades of the 20th century. This standardization process was generated
unequivocally by the practice with the aim to have minimum criteria for safe design and on
the other hand consistence methods for comparing different designs. Consequently the
regulations were prepared mainly by engineers involved in practice and supported a clear,
transparent and practical way of design. What is also important to see is that this birth of
modern structural design regulated by codes was far before the appearance of numerical
calculation methods and digital computers so the rules were simple and easy-to-use in
conformity with the limitations of the usual hand calculation methods of this era. Practically
the verification process was based on a bipolar concept, where the structural design is
dissolved into two sharply separated phases:
analysis calculation of structural response (deformations, forces, stresses etc.) to a
certain loading
resistance calculations of structural limits (cross section, member checks etc.) to a
certain response
Interaction between these two sides was generally not considered. The calculations on the
analysis side were performed by simple tools yielding unambiguous results and the more
complicated effects (for instance the geometrical nonlinearity or torsion) were neglected or
simplified by approximate factors. The structural standards practically regularized only the
resistance side. These rules were based on straightforward principles easy to calculate by hand
and took into account the uncertainties of these simple models. An important consequence of
the simplicity requirements is that the structural design formulae were developed only at cross

section and structural member levels there were no appropriate methods for compound, global
type structural levels considering such failure modes which cannot be dissolved into and
covered by component failures. In this approach the global structural model should be isolated
to separate members for which the resistance calculations can be evaluated. Apparently the
methods of this era developed considerably through the years but the basic way and the
bipolar philosophy of design did not change. The most significant achievement in the
evolution of structural design process was the appearance of desktop computers in the
engineering activities. The new structural software products and available numerical methods
have suddenly changed the possibilities of engineering calculations and accordingly increased
the potential efficiency and productivity of structural design. However it is important to see
that these new opportunities influenced qualitatively only the structural analysis by widening
the range of computable phenomena and speeding up the calculations. The whole design
process was not really affected since the standard resistance calculations did not exploit the
possibility in the increased computational capability. The newly developed standard formulae
kept avoiding the field of structural analysis continuing the conventional bipolar design
concept and were still trying to answer the requirements of simplicity using the member
isolation approach. Accordingly the structural software packages developed more and more
powerful and comprehensive analysis tools but were limited to simple implementation of the
conventional hand oriented resistance calculations.
The research and development body behind the Structural Eurocodes started to realize this
situation and as a first answer in the final version of Eurocode 3 new design approaches have
been introduced seceding from the bipolar design concept and using 3D global structural
analysis results for the resistance calculations. These innovative rules are poorly known and
acknowledged by the practicing engineers because of two main reasons:
the philosophy of global structural design is quite far from the usual working methods
of engineers due to long practice in the conventional methods
the new rules involve more serious requirements for modelling and analysis of
structures these are not efficiently supported by the commonly used structural design
software products.
Recognizing however the significant potential in these methods and knowing the continuous,
comprehensive research in order to widen their applicability in a series of papers the general
design approach is introduced showing the requirements for the appropriate calculations and
the possibilities comparing to the conventional methods. This introductory paper is intended
to attract attention by presenting the basic idea of the general method applied for stability
design problems and summarizing the most important advantages and consequences of
application. The subsequent articles contain detailed descriptions on the increased
requirements for analysis of the structural model (Paper 1), calculation of the resistance of
cross sections (Paper 2), application of general method for stability design (Paper 3) and some
special issues from this field (Paper 4).

2. Basic idea of the general stability method

In order to clarify the basic idea of the general method for stability design (Section 6.3.4 in
EC 3) let us examine first the two fundamental buckling cases belonging to a single member
subjected to compression (pure flexural buckling) or strong axis bending (pure lateraltorsional buckling). The basic steps of checking this structural member against buckling
according to the conventional method of EC3 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 are the following:

Step1
Calculation of the design values of internal forces (NEd, My,Ed) on the examined
member according to appropriate analysis method (first or second order etc.)
Step2
Calculation of pure elastic critical forces (Ncr, My,cr) of the member belonging to the
appropriate buckling mode (pure flexural buckling, pure lateral-torsional buckling)
Step3
Calculation of pure ultimate limit forces (Nc,Rk, My,Rk) of the most critical cross section
of the member
Step4
Calculation of member slenderness and reduction factors for the pure buckling cases:

Step5
Code check for member stability design situation of pure cases:

In case of interaction of buckling forms the pure cases should be calculated as described and
additionally special interaction factors should be determined for the final code check (see EC3
6.3.3). The calculations of Step1 are generally performed on suitable numerical model by
some structural engineering software, for Step3 the EC3 provides simple and clear formulae
(see EC3 6.2), Step4 and Step5 are straightforward calculations. From the point of view of the
practicing engineer the key step of this process is the calculation of critical forces (Step2). The
EC3 does not contain regulations for this issue only general requirements are formulated.
Usually these values are calculated by some analytical expressions which contain several
parameters depending on the proper support and loading conditions (effective length, moment
gradient factor etc.). Although there are a great number of technical books and articles
providing proposals for the determination of these parameters for different kinds of problems
in a general case the accuracy of these assumptions are highly influenced by the practical
experience and knowledge of the engineer. Moreover the decisions in this field have usually a
significant effect on the final result taking a substantial uncertainty into the design process
increasing the possibility for an unsafe or uneconomic structure. This is the point where the
general method represents a remarkable change in the design process generalizing the
calculations of the critical forces utilizing the possibilities inherent in the numerical analysis
methods.
In order to understand the theoretical basis of this generalization let us introduce the following
relationships for the examined cases:

In these relationships the ult,k factors are multipliers of the internal forces to reach the
characteristic resistance of the cross sections and the cr factors are multipliers of the internal
forces to reach the buckling resistance of the member. The conversion leads to a new form of
the member slenderness and code check (Step4 and Step5):

Although these equations seem to describe only a formal conversion, but that is the basic form
of the general method of EC3 6.3.4 representing a design process for stability checks at a
higher structural level, the steps are the following (see Fig. 1 for comparison with the
conventional approach):

My,Rk
My,cr

ult,k,M

cr,M
My,Ed

ult,k,N

NEd

Nc,Rk

Ncr

cr,N
Figure 1. Load factors for the conventional and the general methods

Step1
Calculation of the design values of internal forces on the examined member according
to appropriate analysis method (first or second order etc.)
Step2
Calculation of critical load level (cr) belonging to the complete loading case (instead
of divided to pure cases)
Step3

Calculation of ultimate load level (ult,k) of the most critical cross section belonging to
the complete loading case (instead of divided to pure cases)
Step4
Calculation of general slenderness and reduction factors:
(

Step5
Code check for member stability design situation of pure cases:

where op is determined from the values of andLT

With taking the calculations of critical and ultimate values from the member force level to the
applied load level this method generalizes the conventional approach in two main fields:

it is applicable not only for single, isolated members but for certain structural parts or
whole structural models where the governing buckling mode forms a consistent shape
involving the whole examined part
the buckling form should not be separated into pure cases but the real, complete
loading and appropriate buckling situation is taken into the calculation (Fig. 1),
accordingly the application of special interaction factors becomes unnecessary

Calculation of the values of cr and ult,k for the general slenderness covering all possible
global buckling modes requires special analysis and cross section models and algorithms,
these important issues are discussed in the subsequent Papers 2&3 of this series.
It is important to note that in the recent version of EC3 there are several restrictions on the
application field and moreover the National Annexes are usually quite distrustful of this
approach mainly because of the lack of enough knowledge and experience. However on the
other hand there are heavy research and development efforts on extending its applicability and
this method is expected to cover much larger area of practical problems then the isolated
member based conventional procedures.
Another important issue which should be addressed is the efficient utilization of structural
analysis software products in the design process. In the conventional design approach the
isolation of members and the separation of pure buckling modes make the use of computer
oriented numerical methods inconvenient (sometimes impossible) in the phase of calculation
of elastic critical forces. That is the feature what was referred to as bipolar way of design
since the structural analysis phase is still limited to the calculation of internal forces (Step1)
and it is sharply separated from the structural design phases (Step2 to Step5). This approach
was evident when all the calculations were performed by hand or on tools with very limited
calculation capacity. Nowadays however when the structural design software has dominant
role in the design process containing several efficient calculation possibilities (including the
determination of elastic critical forces) this bipolar design approach has become outworn. Due
to its described extensions the general method is highly applicable for software
implementation yielding numerical analysis based solution for the key phase of Step2 in the
design process.

3. Some application issues

This section is not intended to point out some important issues regarding the stability
verification of steel structures. Three important topics are reviewed which can cause problems
using the conventional methods and for which the introduced general approach gives solution.
Each problem is revealed briefly from the point of view of elastic critical buckling analysis
aiming only to attract attention; the subsequent articles of this series present more detailed
examinations and examples.
3.1 Buckling parameters
The design procedures buckling curves, interaction factors used in the conventional
stability verification were developed and calibrated for simply supported uniform members
(mainly with doubly symmetric cross sections) the basic model of structural standards. In case
of these types of members there are straightforward calculation formulae for the elastic
critical forces however naturally in a practical structural model the members can rarely be
considered as simply supported. In these general cases special buckling parameters should be
introduced reducing the real problem to the standard model. For the basic buckling modes
these parameters are the following:

y, z - effective length factors for the in-plane and flexural buckling considering the
rotational restraints in the plane of buckling at the member ends
z, w - effective length factors for the lateral-torsional buckling considering the
rotational restraint in the lateral plane; and torsional restraint at the member ends
respectively
C1, C2, C3 moment gradient factors for lateral-torsional buckling considering the
distribution of bending moment along the member length

There are several problems with the appropriate determination of these factors; we collected
the most important ones:
(1) all the proposals for these factors are usually based on certain members having some
kind of support at both ends, solutions for general intermediate supports or cantileverlike behavior are very rare and incomplete
(2) for the effective torsional length factor (w) there are no practical proposal even it can
be very dominant in some cases where the dominant buckling mode includes torsion
(3) it was just recently realized that the moment gradient factors (C1, C2, C3) can highly
depend on the lateral and torsional effective length factors as well
(4) the determination of these factors can be very difficult and uncertain in the cases when
the buckling of a certain member is only a part of a global type buckling mode
involving a complete part of the structure
The last problem is of very high importance, because from other reasons as well see Section
3.3 it is usually recommended to develop the structural model so as to form a coherent
mechanical system which generally has dominantly some kind of global buckling modes.
These modes, by nature, cannot be handled appropriately by the conventional member
isolation technique and this is the main issue where the general stability design approach can
provide significant improvements for the reliability and efficiency of the structural design
process.

3.2 Irregularities
As it was described in the previous section the stability design procedures were verified
experimentally and analytically as well on simple standard models created specially for the
examination of certain buckling modes these problems can be regarded as the regular cases.
All deviations from these cases yield irregular problems and models these can be divided into
two main categories:

structural irregularity: deviation from the uniform, prismatic member model: tapered
members, haunched members, built-up members etc.
behaviour irregularity: deviation from the examined regular buckling modes (the
previously discussed pure buckling cases): for instance buckling about an eccentric
restraint axis caused by eccentric lateral supports

Originally these irregularities were one of the main reasons for the introduction of the general
method into the EC3, because the conventional methods have no appropriate tools for the
examination of these cases although they are very frequent in the steel structural design
practice.

3.3 Variation of slenderness values

When using the conventional method and evaluating the critical forces and slenderness
separately for the isolated members the usual result is that the values of member slenderness
vary considerably within one coherent structural model. There is one main problem with this
approach from reliability point of view: the higher critical forces and accordingly the lower
member slenderness values are calculated with the assumption that the reminder elements of
the complete structure are in a stable position which is obviously not true considering that
their critical forces belong to a lower load level. This problem is in strong connection with the
robustness criteria which becomes more and more important design requirement for
structures, accordingly the EN 1991-1-7 proposes the following (among others) in the Section
3.3 (2b):
designing the structure so that in the event of a localised failure (e.g. failure
of a single member) the stability of the whole structure or of a significant part
of it would not be endangered
Using the general stability design method these controversies can automatically be identified
and an optimal distribution of member slenderness values can be reached by using one critical
load factor for all the members.

4. Conclusions

An introduction is presented into the general stability method appeared in the EC3 as an
alternative approach for stability design. Reviewing the history of structural standards the
roots of the presently applied design approaches have been demonstrated and it is pointed out
that the significantly increased capacity in the field of structural analysis provided the

necessary facilities for more advanced design approaches. The new versions of the Structural
Eurocodes for steel structures (EC3) contain several new approaches less known and accepted
by the engineering practice. The strong opinion of the authors is that these new methods yield
the real innovation of the Eurocodes and provide the main benefits compared to the national
standards. However it is also important to see that the appropriate application of these
approaches requires a deeper background and knowledge in certain fields of structural
engineering sciences to reach the aimed advantages through a more efficient structural design
process. This series of articles is intended to introduce these new approaches from this point
of view.